skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The JFNA annual Federation overseas cash allocations report has become an annual report of failure -- failure begetting failure. And, like clockwork, the JFNA projection for 2019 cash is the worst...ever.
For 2019, the sad, sad totals are projected as follows:
JAFI -- $74.3
JDC -- $30.0
ORT -- $ 2.1
Friends, these are not misprints -- these totals are the lowest...ever. Reflect on this: if the aggregate federation annual campaigns are at $983 million (+/-) these allocations have fallen to a little over 11%. These percentages and the actual dollars are an insult to these agencies which are our agents and which we really no longer adequately sup[port.
The system, if there still is one, is guilty of criminal neglect. Over the last two years alone, the allocations to JAFI have fallen by close to $15,000,000 -- a percentage drop of 17% -- while JDC's total over the same period -- mirabile dictu -- was flat (and actually increased minimally in 2019 from 2018).
You may recall that, rather than accepting its responsibilities for advocacy on behalf of JAFI/JDC/ORT, JFNA's Board voted, as part of its "reorganization" of UIA, to abjure -- to walk away -- from its sacred obligation for advocacy for the core budgets of the overseas partners, resolving to "let JAFI and JDC advocate for themselves." "Not our problem" has morphed from "never our problem." JFNA fled from its advocacy obligations like rainwater rushung toward a sewer.
Failure is truly an orphan. This is nothing new. Recognizing that JFNA was unwilling to engage in serious advocacy dating back to 2004 (if not earlier), when I was serving as the Chair of the Jewish Agency North America, I met with JDC's lay and professional leaders to propose a serious partnership for overseas advocacy. The Joint's leaders -- terrific women and men totally committed to JDC -- and I had serious conversations that ended with JDC determining that it would continue to hold JFNA responsible for advocacy. As they said in Pretty Woman -- mistake; bad mistake, really big mistake.
I remember well the hope that leadership had at the time of the merger two decades ago -- one of the bedrock assumptions in the merger book was that the emerging organization, now JFNA, would result in more dollars for the core budgets of the overseas partners. An entire evaluation process was designed for determining the priorities...and to support them. And, then, there was nothing./////
Rwexler
I can't tell you how many times I have visited Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry -- for a decade we lived in Hyde Park just blocks from the Museum and were there so often with our children; then later in life, our grandchildren. I remember as a teenager being there when the U-505 German submarine was floated across Lake Michigan, then across South Shore Drive to become a permanent exhibit. And, while in law school, I worked mornings for an urban planning firm whose offices were in the bowels of the Museum.
Bottom line, I love the Museum as does anyone who has ever visited there. I assume that includes a large number of you.
So, I was struck by a Chicago Tribune article Museum of Science and Industry to get new name...It seems that Kenneth Griffin, co-founder of the amazingly successful hedge-fund Citadel, and one of the great philanthropists, whose Charitable Fund had already distributed over $1 billion to charities, had pledged $125 million to the Museum which change its name to the Kenneth C. Griffin Museum of Science and Industry.
One correspondent to Crain's Chicago Business put it succinctly:
"Leave museum's name alone Kudos to Ken Griffin for donating so generously to such a worthy and important institution...But the name change is just wrong. Name a wing after him. Heck, put a bug statue of him out front, but the museum name should be unchanged.
If Julius Rosenwald -- whose name should be plastered all over this city for the great public work he did -- didn't need his name on it when he helped create it, Griffin doesn't need his for helping to keep it going for another 100 years." (italics added)
The original Museum structure was the Palace of Fine Arts from the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition. The Museum was initially endowed by the father of Chicago Jewish philanthropy, Julius Rosenwald who who pledged $3 million and also recruited the Commercial Club of Chicago for further financial support supplementing municipal bond funds. Rosenwald refused offers to have the Museum named for him even as the public often called it the Rosenwald Industrial Museum.
Of interest, the Apollo 8 spacecraft is housed in Henry Crown Space Center, named for the patriarch of the Crown Family, models of generosity and philanthropy worldwide. And, there is now a Rosenwald Room, which would no doubt infuriate Julius Rosenwald were he still with us.
Griffin's incredible gift may have been conditioned on the Museum's renaming. For a $135 million gift, certainly Ken Griffin purchased the naming rights -- if he didn't ask for them, the Museum was wise to offer the honor.
Rosenwald continues to inspire Jewish and secular philanthropy in Chicago. Griffin's modern philanthropy likewise. When I next visit the Museum with my grandchildren, I will remember Julius Rosenwald no matter the naming.
Rwexler
Chag Sukkot Sameach.
A curious Forward Op-Ed has been circulating recently --https://forward.com/opinion/432684/for-gods-sake-stop-preaching-politics-from-the-pulpit/ -- in certain circles this thing has gained a certain enthusiastic support. It seems that the author has also written such drivel as Give Trump the Benefit of the Doubt, You Give It to Democrats All the Time and No, Orthodox Jews Are Not White Supremacists -- and Neither is Trump. I think you can pretty much deduce this guy's political leanings. In fact, uf I might speculate for a moment, I'm guessing that those who endorse the "stop preaching politics" plea would not object to preaching politics if the message was supportive of President Trump -- just a guess.
You can link to the Op-Ed if you wish but you can probably also deduce the author's slant, can't you? He wants all Rabbis who might espouse positions that he opposes should just stop it. You see, the author has identified these...these miscreants...as Reform Rabbis. If you follow his "reasoning," you have to conclude, as did this guy "that anyone who doesn't share their politics has no place in their congregation." This, of course, is specious.
I love it when my Rabbis challenge me with their opinions; I would hope that most congregational Jews do, Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstruction, it should make no difference. The topics may range from religious practice to social justice even what some might characterize as "political."
But the opinions expressed in the Op-Ed are those of the Managing Director, the Coalition for Jewish Values, Rabbi Yaakov Menken. If you visit this Coalition's website you will find that the CJV (yes, so important that it can self-identify as an acronym):
"... begins from the premise that something can be called an authentic Jewish value only if it is rooted in Biblical and Rabbinic teachings through millennia of Jewish history. Neither spurious references to “Tikkun Olam” nor the use of Biblical verses plucked out of context transform personal views into Jewish tenets."
Wow!! If this be a statement of "Jewish values," I have wholly failed to practice them my whole life. And if you read the position statements of the CJV you will find their version of "values" to be anything done or articulated by President Trump...anything and everything.
And, you should know that Rabbi Menken, who appears to not be a pulpit, congregational Rabbi, has done some important work in Jewish outreach and Torah teaching. I will leave it to you whether to include the CJV in any list of the esteemed Rabbi's achievements.
Now I think that the "over 1,000 Rabbis" (unnamed) whom CJV claims that it represents are entitled to their opinions and they should be free to express them through the organization or from their pulpits (if they have them).
Yes, these unidentified Rabbis should express their opinions freely, just don't try to shut up Rabbis with whom they disagree.
Rwexler
Just a few years ago, the Jewish Agency for Israel amended its governance documents to, among so many other things, enacted term limits for the first time in its history. A year or so later, one prominent philanthropist among many Board members received a letter from the Board Chair advising him/her that his/her service on the Board (and, as it happened, on the JAFI Executive). That leader accepted that he/she would no longer serve on the Board but demanded that his/her service on the JAFI Executive continue -- apparently forever. So it came to pass, that, a few weeks later, the Secretary General sent this leader a letter confirming that his/her service on JAFI's most important deliberative body would continue -- the letter expressly stated, without any legal basis, that service on the Executive was in personam.
I liked that rationale very much and, so, inasmuch as I, too, had been cast off because of Term limits from the JAFI Board and Executive, I wrote the Secretary General asserting that I, too, would continue to sit on the Executive. No, the Secretary General wrote back essentially stating: that this other leader was special, you're not. I couldn't disagree with that excellent legal argument.
I merely note that Term Limits at JAFI appear to apply only to North American Board members -- my friends from Keren Ha'Yesod, among them so many exceptional leaders, continue to serve on the JAFI Board in perpetuity it appears. (I could also note that KH is raising/allocating almost no significant funds for JAFI but given the dismal state of federation allocations to the Agency, that probably wouldn't be fair -- accurate, yes, but unfair.)
I suppose that were Board service to include a sense of obligation to the organization rather than to personal aspiration or to fealty to those lay and professional leaders in power, I might feel differently about Term limits. But, what we have seen, in too many places, is the opposite -- those who know better doing their worst in pursuit of ingratiation with the powers that be or in pursuit of higher office or in the desire to be seen as a "team player." "Team player" in this context means responding to a leadership demand to "jump" with a "how high?" response.
For an exc ellent discussion of Term Limits, see: https://www.forpurposelaw.com/charity-board-term-limits-best-practice/
And, it's not just lay leaders who ought to debate their own Term Limits; they should be debating chief professional term limits as well. From 45 years of practicing zoning law, I came to the conclusions that municipal professionals should be limited to five years of consecutive service after which they should be required to take a one year hiatus to work for those who require municipal approvals. What they would learn!! (Of course these musings were going on only in my head.)
I, as you, recognize that non-profit professionals represent organizational continuity, as they should, But this reality should not restrict constant evaluation at the very least, and annual Board-adopted goal statements against which that continuity must be measured.
My great respect for non-profit professionals notwithstanding, I have seen what can happen when some -- a relative handful to be sure -- have been in place for what turned out to be too long. I remember way back when visiting a community with a long, long serving CEO. I met with the lay leadership and when I told them of $100s of thousands in unpaid allocations, they were shocked, knew nothing about it. Then, just last year the St. Paul federation board members were unaware of a similar unpaid debt to JAFI and JDC hidden from the laity by a CEO who had recently retired. Over the last decade, some local communal agencies in New York City -- most notoriously, FEGS -- discovered huge losses were likewise occasioned by long-time professional "leaders" and Boards failing in their agency oversight responsibilities.
in this season of introspection, Term Limits should be a discussion among all non-profits.
It won't be.
Rwexler
On September 23, Chicago's Crain's Chicago Business headlined Rabbi accused of defrauding Holocaust survivor, other investors, settles Ponzi scheme charges. This Rabbi settled claims that he and a business partner has "...operated a Ponzi scheme that triggered a $145 million default. It turns out, as Crain's reported, this Rabbi and his associates were still negotiating the amount of their restitution and civil penalties.
The fact that this Ponzi scheme blew up, that at least one Holocaust survivor was among the victims along with countless others, is reprehensible. More so was this quote attributable to the Rabbi's attorney with regard to the settlement of two civil suits:
"It was the right thing to do. In the Jewish Orthodox community, that's what we aim for...There's a higher authority that needs to be answered."
Leave one speechless, doesn't it?
Rwexler
Sometimes one has to just scratch one's head (or bang it against wall or tabletop) in wonder, amazement and shame. Our Post on New York UJA's choice of Japan as a Mission venue -- HUH? -- where participants can experience "the impact of (New York) UJA's global work" inspired a number of incisive Comments that, if you haven't, are must reading.
One of you, under what I assumed was a nom de plume, shared a Shmuely Botech op-ed questioning why Keren Ha'Yesod was honoring Vladimir Putin. An excellent question. Boteach apparently did not realize that this Mission was, in fact, the historic ILR -- the International Leadership Reunion -- a "joint effort" of KH and the Jewish Federations of North America to bring together the mega-donors to our communal efforts world-wide. See, www.ilr2019.com The ILR was originated decades ago under the sponsorship of the United Jewish Appeal and KH and held every few years.
Honoring Putin, the Russian "President"/dictator who supports Iran and Syria among other outlaw nations and undeniably doirected interference in not just the 2016 election here and in countless other countries as well, is understandable only if the Jewish leadership of Russia let it be known that "this will help us." Better yet, the ILR needed to be in Israel where these most major donors might have had a positive and direct impact on Israel-Diaspora relations. But...no.
Honoring Putin at a major Jewish event reminded me of an almost catastrophic mistake shortly after the merger that created what is now JFNA. (I cannot remember the exact event, but it might have been planned for an ILR as well.) The first JFNA Chair of the Executive, with no other lay input, Joel Tauber decided it would put JFNA "on the map" if it presented -- wait for it...Yasser Arafat -- with some kind of international award. So it came to pass that Arafat would receive the Isaiah Award -- an award either created for this event or one given before to Ben Gurion and Rabin. There was no process, no consultation. The JFNA Executive Chair was ready to head to Europe with speech and award in hand. But, before the hand-off could occur, someone leaked the planned event to, as I recall, the Boston Free Beacon -- contemporaneous discussions suggested that the leak was from the PLO or a JFNA professional. The resulting hew and cry was too much -- the event was canceled.
This thing had two impacts: (1) JFNA developed criteria for honorees and a process for selecting them (I know because I was tasked with drafting both) and (2) Kroll & Associates was hired by JFNA to identify the whistle blower, assuming that it was someone inside JFNA.
19 years later and nothing has changed...nothing at all.
Rwexler
Posts
